This past weekend's leak of classified documents of the war in Afghanistan reveals the many troubles that led to the quagmire that the U.S. faces today. Much of it I blame on lack of planning and understanding. The U.S. entered Afghanistan in a highly uncoordinated and impromptu fashion. Granted, it was right after September 11 and most of the nation was indignant. Nonetheless, Bush sent in American troops and requested allied support without understanding the situation in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance, then opposition to the ruling Taliban, had different motives and means of conducting the war; Osama bin Laden was perhaps the least of their concerns. The U.S. sent in its military without developing a coherent strategy, especially for nation-building and exit, or leveraging its allies properly. Pakistan stands out. Its shocking behavior was not unexpected; after all, the U.S. did not understand Musharraf or what interests Pakistan had in the region. Throughout the whole Bush years, the U.S. treated the war, strategy and allies indifferently and even wantonly.
All is not lost despite the revelation of thousands of pages of classified documents. The war is now Obama's. He cannot blame Bush should his venture in Afghanistan end in failure. Obama indeed can learn much from Bush's failures in Afghanistan. Moreover, this leak pay prove to be a blessing in disguise as policy wonks and experts may help drive national foreign policy in a proper direction. I believe that Obama should learn the two main lessons from Afghanistan that I point to above: develop and continue to develop a coherent strategy, and manage allies, especially the Karzai government, effectively. I believe the former will be less of a problem than the latter: after all, Obama has seriously considered and developed a strategy for Afghanistan, but Karzai will be a thorn for many years to come. Ultimate success in Afghanistan will not depend on how the U.S. armed forces perform. It will depend on how the U.S. unleashes its intelligence and diplomacy skills, above all others.
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Sunday 25 July 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Longfellow Bridge: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/25/linking_cities_and_eras/
The bridge needs a revamp and the various interests should be represented. The city planners should emphasize the need for walkers, bicyclists and public transportation - yes, the T - over cars.
2. Supreme Court: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/25/the_most_conservative_high_court_in_decades/
Read the full article on NYTimes. The court is more conservative than any time in the recent past, but it seems that it's following the pace of the public opinion (which is not always wise or rational).
3. Obama Image: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/obamas_image_problem/
I disagree - sure, Obama can appear more tough but it's better for the President, or any other public figure, to be who he really is rather than who he isn't. Being disingenuous is more than being weak.
4. Elitism in Politics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/the_best_and_the_brightest_redux/
Is this another polemic against so-called "elitists" running American policy? I am not convinced about the author's central assumption: that elitists or Ivy Leaguers are not in tune what the average Joe wants.
5. Tea Party: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/racism_at_the_tea_party/
Racism is a serious issue facing the Tea Party (see Rand Paul). Because it is not a formal party with a central locus of accountability, the Tea Party will not be hurt by racist remarks - then again, it cannot help itself much by disclaiming racism.
6. Freedom of Press: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/a_free_press_means_no_subsidies/
I agree - the press must be kept free from government subsidies. Any organization that accepts subsidies - ok, significant amounts, since every institution depends on the government in some way these days - cannot be political neutral or unbiased enough to criticize the government.
7. Culture and Government: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/25/culture_club/
No. The government should not regulate culture: it is almost unconstitutional and violates fundamental freedoms about America. It should use its other powers, such as antitrust, to manage those media and music companies that are acting anti-competitively.
8. European Anarchists: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/07/25/a_history_of_european_anarchists_fascinating_if_a_bit_thin/
A comparison between European anarchists then and such groups today will be interesting. The most important will be the motives behind those people - whether revolution or jihad, or something else.
The bridge needs a revamp and the various interests should be represented. The city planners should emphasize the need for walkers, bicyclists and public transportation - yes, the T - over cars.
2. Supreme Court: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/25/the_most_conservative_high_court_in_decades/
Read the full article on NYTimes. The court is more conservative than any time in the recent past, but it seems that it's following the pace of the public opinion (which is not always wise or rational).
3. Obama Image: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/obamas_image_problem/
I disagree - sure, Obama can appear more tough but it's better for the President, or any other public figure, to be who he really is rather than who he isn't. Being disingenuous is more than being weak.
4. Elitism in Politics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/the_best_and_the_brightest_redux/
Is this another polemic against so-called "elitists" running American policy? I am not convinced about the author's central assumption: that elitists or Ivy Leaguers are not in tune what the average Joe wants.
5. Tea Party: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/racism_at_the_tea_party/
Racism is a serious issue facing the Tea Party (see Rand Paul). Because it is not a formal party with a central locus of accountability, the Tea Party will not be hurt by racist remarks - then again, it cannot help itself much by disclaiming racism.
6. Freedom of Press: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/25/a_free_press_means_no_subsidies/
I agree - the press must be kept free from government subsidies. Any organization that accepts subsidies - ok, significant amounts, since every institution depends on the government in some way these days - cannot be political neutral or unbiased enough to criticize the government.
7. Culture and Government: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/25/culture_club/
No. The government should not regulate culture: it is almost unconstitutional and violates fundamental freedoms about America. It should use its other powers, such as antitrust, to manage those media and music companies that are acting anti-competitively.
8. European Anarchists: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/07/25/a_history_of_european_anarchists_fascinating_if_a_bit_thin/
A comparison between European anarchists then and such groups today will be interesting. The most important will be the motives behind those people - whether revolution or jihad, or something else.
Wednesday 21 July 2010
California's voters should approve Proposition 19
In November, California will vote in a statewide referendum on whether to legalize marijuana. I believe that the proposition in question, Proposition 19, should be approved. Many reasons exist, some of them compelling, for approving the use of a drug that many people nonetheless consider criminal. For me, the two most convincing are legal and fiscal: removing arbitrary criminal policy and relieving fiscal policy. First, California serves notice how the enforcement of marijuana law and marijuana use, whether criminal or medicinal, overwhelmingly affects the poor and minorities. In fact, with medicinal marijuana legal, enforcement of the current laws is very arbitrary: many poor blacks and Hispanics, for example, are arrested at will. Legalizing the whole class will help lessen some of the capriciousness in a very grey area of criminal law and policy. Second, California, like many other states, is facing a growing and unwieldy fiscal crisis. Illegality of marijuana costs the state directly through police work, and more so, indirectly through loss of potential revenue. The Proposition authorizes several revenue-generating provisions that should help alleviate California's budget problem. It is something badly needed for a small price to pay.
Of course many would challenge the Proposition, and polls are indicating that opinion is close to 50-50. Besides the moral and criminal arguments, a legal issue arises: will California's proposition legalizing marijuana conflict with the federal government's ban on marijuana? The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, which upheld the federal government's ban on marijuana, even medical, as a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause, should serve as a guide. Despite that broad and seemingly ineluctable precedent, I believe that the new proposition, if passed, may survive legal scrutiny. First of all, Congress has not expressly preempted marijuana regulation - many states have differing laws that coexist with the federal ban. Second, the proposition itself has few provisions that directly challenge the Congressional ban. Criminal use or drug trafficking will continue to be outlawed. Third, the proposition's revenue-generating aims also shields it from being struck down: states have a large leeway on laws that seek to raise money, as opposed to laws seeking to regulate. Finally, the proposition does not violate the mirror side of the Commerce Clause, the dormant clause that prevents states from inhibiting interstate commerce. Thus, I believe that should the proposition pass and then is challenged, which it doubtless will, the Supreme Court could in fact uphold it. Right now, the issue lacks ripeness but who knows, some day limited criminalization of marijuana might become a fact, a boon for California and most of us.
Of course many would challenge the Proposition, and polls are indicating that opinion is close to 50-50. Besides the moral and criminal arguments, a legal issue arises: will California's proposition legalizing marijuana conflict with the federal government's ban on marijuana? The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, which upheld the federal government's ban on marijuana, even medical, as a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause, should serve as a guide. Despite that broad and seemingly ineluctable precedent, I believe that the new proposition, if passed, may survive legal scrutiny. First of all, Congress has not expressly preempted marijuana regulation - many states have differing laws that coexist with the federal ban. Second, the proposition itself has few provisions that directly challenge the Congressional ban. Criminal use or drug trafficking will continue to be outlawed. Third, the proposition's revenue-generating aims also shields it from being struck down: states have a large leeway on laws that seek to raise money, as opposed to laws seeking to regulate. Finally, the proposition does not violate the mirror side of the Commerce Clause, the dormant clause that prevents states from inhibiting interstate commerce. Thus, I believe that should the proposition pass and then is challenged, which it doubtless will, the Supreme Court could in fact uphold it. Right now, the issue lacks ripeness but who knows, some day limited criminalization of marijuana might become a fact, a boon for California and most of us.
Sunday 18 July 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Health Insurance: http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/07/18/firms_cancel_health_coverage/
I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, small businesses are losing out and pressurized to abandon health care coverage for employees. On the other hand, the public insurance pools are augmented with additional and often healthy beneficiaries who can spread the risk.
2. Presidential Vacations: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/18/vacations_are_prickly_issue_for_presidents/
Presidents, like anyone, deserve downtime to relax with family and get away from the grind. But because they are major public figures, the press will inevitably scrutinize them and how they spend their vacations.
3. BP and Public: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/18/at_corner_bp_station_a_high_octane_standoff/
I'm surprised that there hasn't been widespread boycotts of BP gas stations. Maybe drivers need gas, period or aren't so compelled to incriminate BP.
4. British Monarchy: http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/07/18/in_financially_ailing_britain_even_queen_is_cutting_back/
Good to see the Queen set an example. The people look to the monarchy to lead them and exemplify the times.
5. Broadcast Speech Regulation: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/the_obscenity_police/
I agree that networks should have discretion to filter their speech and regulate themselves. But government nonetheless have a compelling reason for regulating obscene speech, esp. in protecting children.
6. Fiscal Policy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/unlock_common_sense_in_public_spending/
Ok, I get it - we need both spending to stave off another recession but also control to reduce the deficit. I agree with the author that we should not fear spending more today to revive the economy and cutting back later. Exactly where is the line?
7. States' Rights: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/whos_defending_states_rights/
I do not view the recent striking down the marriage law as a victory for states rights. Even if the Tenth Amendment was a major rationale for the decision, I believe that due process and equal protection played a larger role. States rights, as a whole constitutional movement, is close to irrelevant today.
8. Foreign Aid: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/18/free_money/
I agree with the idea, almost wholeheartedly. Poor people have solid financial skills. Giving them the money with financial independence unleashes their entrepreneurial spirit, which is necessary for national growth.
9. Science: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/18/hard_to_find/
It's not that all science is becoming more difficult to discover. Common, everyday inventions and observations are still made by amateurs and independent scientists. It's only the most esoteric and complex that requires mass collaboration and major funding.
I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, small businesses are losing out and pressurized to abandon health care coverage for employees. On the other hand, the public insurance pools are augmented with additional and often healthy beneficiaries who can spread the risk.
2. Presidential Vacations: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/18/vacations_are_prickly_issue_for_presidents/
Presidents, like anyone, deserve downtime to relax with family and get away from the grind. But because they are major public figures, the press will inevitably scrutinize them and how they spend their vacations.
3. BP and Public: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/18/at_corner_bp_station_a_high_octane_standoff/
I'm surprised that there hasn't been widespread boycotts of BP gas stations. Maybe drivers need gas, period or aren't so compelled to incriminate BP.
4. British Monarchy: http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/07/18/in_financially_ailing_britain_even_queen_is_cutting_back/
Good to see the Queen set an example. The people look to the monarchy to lead them and exemplify the times.
5. Broadcast Speech Regulation: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/the_obscenity_police/
I agree that networks should have discretion to filter their speech and regulate themselves. But government nonetheless have a compelling reason for regulating obscene speech, esp. in protecting children.
6. Fiscal Policy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/unlock_common_sense_in_public_spending/
Ok, I get it - we need both spending to stave off another recession but also control to reduce the deficit. I agree with the author that we should not fear spending more today to revive the economy and cutting back later. Exactly where is the line?
7. States' Rights: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/whos_defending_states_rights/
I do not view the recent striking down the marriage law as a victory for states rights. Even if the Tenth Amendment was a major rationale for the decision, I believe that due process and equal protection played a larger role. States rights, as a whole constitutional movement, is close to irrelevant today.
8. Foreign Aid: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/18/free_money/
I agree with the idea, almost wholeheartedly. Poor people have solid financial skills. Giving them the money with financial independence unleashes their entrepreneurial spirit, which is necessary for national growth.
9. Science: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/18/hard_to_find/
It's not that all science is becoming more difficult to discover. Common, everyday inventions and observations are still made by amateurs and independent scientists. It's only the most esoteric and complex that requires mass collaboration and major funding.
Wednesday 14 July 2010
Labour's Long Assault on British Civil Liberties
It was only five years ago when London experienced a series of street bombings that drew comparisons to 9/11. Even before then, and more so afterwards, Britain under Labour became as close to a modern police state as any Western, democratic government. Today, additional documents showing Labour's torture and abuse of British citizens were declassified. Such allegations of the government's complicity, often done in the name of national security, showed the previous government's low appraisal for civil liberties. Its ID cards programme, thankfully scrapped by the new government, could have been the first major step toward an Orwellian society.
The new government has much to do to restore British civil liberties. It should scale back and seek to scrap the many public surveillance cameras that exist. It should encourage more openness to the courts, and reform libel law, which is among the most restrictive in the developed world. It should confer and uphold as sacrosanct the rights and privileges of civil organizations and institutions, key partners envisioned by the Conservatives in renewal. While terrorism remains a threat and national security should not be taken lightly, civil liberties form the underpinnings of the British constitutional government. Labour's appalling record is only coming into light; it is more important that the current and future governments do not make similar errors with those fundamental and indispensable freedoms.
The new government has much to do to restore British civil liberties. It should scale back and seek to scrap the many public surveillance cameras that exist. It should encourage more openness to the courts, and reform libel law, which is among the most restrictive in the developed world. It should confer and uphold as sacrosanct the rights and privileges of civil organizations and institutions, key partners envisioned by the Conservatives in renewal. While terrorism remains a threat and national security should not be taken lightly, civil liberties form the underpinnings of the British constitutional government. Labour's appalling record is only coming into light; it is more important that the current and future governments do not make similar errors with those fundamental and indispensable freedoms.
Sunday 11 July 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Invasive Species: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/11/a_recovery_takes_root/
The blight of the Asian longhorn beetle shows the importance of a rich native biodiversity, including both predators that can control the population growth of invasive species (though that is less likely) and trees some of which can withstand the invasive species.
2. Police and Race: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/11/the_avoidable_arrest/
I agree: the Gates arrest was largely based on race. Unless the police educate themselves better about dealing with civilians, especially those of different races, this problem may well recur.
3. War on Terror: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/11/a_jihads_inspiration/
I agree: Bin Laden now is more of a figurehead whose relevance depends on al-Qaeda's: close to nil. What matters more for US foreign policy is addressing the underlying tensions that led to Bin Laden's resurgence, including Israel.
4. World Cup: http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2010/07/11/theres_a_world_of_difference/
I agree that Americans do not understand or appreciate soccer like they appear to be (except maybe when the US team is playing). And I love the Daily Mail headline: 'If the Few had defended as badly as England did, we'd all be speaking German now'.
5. Democracy and Information: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
People are predisposed to agree with facts that fit their beliefs, but let's not use this to disparage the importance of facts. It is imperative that democracies safeguard a 'marketplace of ideas' where facts, both true and fanciful, may prosper.
6. States and Military: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/military_rule_20/
I find the military takeover of civilian sectors prevalent (just look at how China's PLA is controlling so many economic enterprises). Excessive military involvement in civilian sectors and decision-making bodes badly for many of the world's governments.
7. Environmental Protection: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/07/11/river_wild/
In such difficult debates, the present must take priority over the past. If enough scientific evidence suggests that a dam should be razed to save the environment or species, historical appeal or aesthetics should not bar.
8. Facebook: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/07/11/facebook_world/
Facebook is just getting started in reshaping human relations. In ten years, this book and its analysis may well be old news.
The blight of the Asian longhorn beetle shows the importance of a rich native biodiversity, including both predators that can control the population growth of invasive species (though that is less likely) and trees some of which can withstand the invasive species.
2. Police and Race: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/11/the_avoidable_arrest/
I agree: the Gates arrest was largely based on race. Unless the police educate themselves better about dealing with civilians, especially those of different races, this problem may well recur.
3. War on Terror: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/11/a_jihads_inspiration/
I agree: Bin Laden now is more of a figurehead whose relevance depends on al-Qaeda's: close to nil. What matters more for US foreign policy is addressing the underlying tensions that led to Bin Laden's resurgence, including Israel.
4. World Cup: http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2010/07/11/theres_a_world_of_difference/
I agree that Americans do not understand or appreciate soccer like they appear to be (except maybe when the US team is playing). And I love the Daily Mail headline: 'If the Few had defended as badly as England did, we'd all be speaking German now'.
5. Democracy and Information: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
People are predisposed to agree with facts that fit their beliefs, but let's not use this to disparage the importance of facts. It is imperative that democracies safeguard a 'marketplace of ideas' where facts, both true and fanciful, may prosper.
6. States and Military: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/military_rule_20/
I find the military takeover of civilian sectors prevalent (just look at how China's PLA is controlling so many economic enterprises). Excessive military involvement in civilian sectors and decision-making bodes badly for many of the world's governments.
7. Environmental Protection: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/07/11/river_wild/
In such difficult debates, the present must take priority over the past. If enough scientific evidence suggests that a dam should be razed to save the environment or species, historical appeal or aesthetics should not bar.
8. Facebook: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/07/11/facebook_world/
Facebook is just getting started in reshaping human relations. In ten years, this book and its analysis may well be old news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)